> What "entertainment"? This doesn't follow at all. "Entertainment" isn't a particularly energy-hungry category. You're disingenuous, or naive. One's as bad as

> What "entertainment"? This doesn't follow at all. "Entertainment" isn't a particularly energy-hungry category. You're disingenuous, or naive. One's as bad as the other. This isn't 400 BC. When anyone here wants to be entertained, they don't ride the donkey cart down to the stone amphitheater and watch a play in torchlight (and you probably wouldn't allow the torches either, too many particulates). For any sort of entertainment anyone might conceive, there is a manufactured good involved. > Less than, worse than? First world people eat entirely too much, and unhealthily. Not hard to imagine diets better for humans and the ecosystem. We're engineers here. It doesn't work like that. One parameter of the other, and we already heard you say which one you'd pick. > Worse than? Durable clothes are better for the environment, But they won't be durable. They'll just get worn out, but you'll wear it anyway because you can't get it replaced. As it was centuries ago. When someone dies, they'll fight over the clothes, they'll be that precious again. At least if you have your way. >Fewer places than? Are people taking jet airplanes to work every day? Those people are connected. It's the guy who drives a shitbeater car that you're worried about. All of my bullet points follow. They're just shining the poorest possible light on your political agenda.